"Only real science allowed"

[gibran2]

When Copernicus, Kepler and Galilei came along this was proven to wrong.

And initially, how accepting was the scientific community of their ideas?

People, including scientists, don’t like ideas that challenge their cherished beliefs about how the world is. Scientists are just as irrational as other human beings, and they are often the first to express their opinions regarding what they see as the ridiculousness of certain radical new ideas.

Yes, of course. I know this very well too, but what is the point? If their theories really are right, it will eventually be accepted. Again, this is about beliefs and perspectives being wrong, about immediate reactions and shocks to breakthroughs. Einstein was ridiculed too, and the scientists who sought to refute his theories were just wrong. Something is either right or wrong, no matter what we think about it. We are by nature irrational, we have silly beliefs, we have egos. Science as a methodology, in itself, makes sure this doesn't get in the way when we wish to approach the right answers about how our universe works. People doing science however, can just as well fuck up as someone who uses a knife. But this is not an argument against science or a case for the lack of science, as I am sure you know - just as the fact that someone kills with a knife is not a serious argument against the knife in fact being a good tool. These are rather general remarks about people.

I’m not criticizing science – I’m critical of some closed-minded, irrational people who happen to be scientists.

The point is that there may be something to DMT experiences beyond “just brain disturbances induced by drugs”. Ridicule of such ideas leads to a lack of interest in exploring them scientifically. Closed-minded scientists are not the ones who make radical new discoveries – they’re the ones who ridicule new ideas and slow scientific progress.

There are lots of interesting phenomena waiting to be explored, but between our draconian drug laws and apparent lack of profit potential, it seems that these phenomena aren’t considered worth investigating by the scientific community.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

there is no room for skepticism in good science
skepticism is blind faith in doubt, after all
there is no part of science that is about denouncing belief
only in sharing explanations that are supported
that an explanation contradicts a belief does not matter
the goal is never to dismiss the beliefs of others
that has always been the domain of religion,
even when that religion is called Science

science has never been about a closed mind
doubt is nothing but a closed mind

 

[Citta]

there is no room for skepticism in good science
skepticism is blind faith in doubt, after all
there is no part of science that is about denouncing belief
only in sharing explanations that are supported
that an explanation contradicts a belief does not matter
the goal is never to dismiss the beliefs of others
that has always been the domain of religion,
even when that religion is called Science

science has never been about a closed mind
doubt is nothing but a closed mind

Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: "A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."

So! - of course there is room for a healthy amount of skepticism in good science. "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory". A basic tenet of science is therefore for scientists to posit and test different hypotheses and theories. The progress of science is made either by rejecting or confirming these hypotheses, thus skepticism is embodied in the heart of the scientific methodology. "Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue; it is an intellectual crime".

Skepticism is one of the most valuable tools in science. Without the boldness and preserverance of skeptics and scientists, we wouldn't have scientific progress - only dogmatic religion and the delusion that we are at the center of the universe and oh-so-special.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

my feeling is that to disbelieve something without proof for or against it is as foolish as to believe something without proof for or against it

being without belief is not the same as disbelieving.

"A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory".

such as the theory that people should doubt things that have not been evidenced?
or believe them for that matter...

the dogmatic application of skepticism and denouncement that is found today is disturbing
it reminds me more of the catholic church in 600, than it does science today

having an open mind means that things can go either way, not that claims are to be doubted or believed without evidence

 

[Citta]

my feeling is that to disbelieve something without proof for or against it is as foolish as to believe something without proof for or against it

being without belief is not the same as disbelieving.

What is this suppose to mean? I don't follow the logic: refusing to believe in unsubstantiated claims is foolish, and when evidence is provided it is still foolish to believe the claim is true? Did I miss something?

Being without belief may not be exactly the same as disbelieving, but it doesn't really make any difference, as this example illustrates: A skeptic saying "I don't wanna believe anything about this claim until we have gathered evidence to support it" is not very different from the other skeptic saying "I don't wish to believe in this claim until we have gathered evidence to support it". Both will adjust to the evidence or the lack of evidence, thus actually having an open, but critical thinking, mind. Instead of being dictated by their beliefs or lack of beliefs, they base their beliefs or lack of beliefs on an honest investigation that will either support or refute the original statement. This is the best open mindedness there is.

such as the theory that people should doubt things that have not been evidenced?
or believe them for that matter...

Yes, doubting or not wanting to believe in things that have no evidence is totally reasonable. This is what skepticism is, and this is the very heart of the scientific methodology and progress.

having an open mind means that things can go either way, not that claims are to be doubted or believed without evidence

We should have an open mind, but not so open that our brains pop out Mister!

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Being without belief may not be exactly the same as disbelieving, but it doesn't really make any difference, as this example illustrates: A skeptic saying "I don't wanna believe anything about this claim until we have gathered evidence to support it" is not very different from the other skeptic saying "I don't wish to believe in this claim until we have gathered evidence to support it".

i have seen a lot of people who without evidence go out of their way to denounce the beliefs of others as mistaken, delusional, fraudulent etc, and then claim that this is a scientific act of being skeptical.

Sadly many self proclaimed science advocating people do not seem to partake of the idea that 'lack of evidence is not evidence against'
or has been said:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[endlessness]

and absence of evidence is neither evidence of truth.... If someone claims they have contacted martian beings and have found the cure for cancer and how to live out of sunlight, and they are ready to tell you if you pay 1000$ for their workshops, what do you think is the most reasonable response? To go for it, to consider it 'just as likely as anything else just because there hasnt been conclusive evidence that its a lie' ? Or being skeptical, doubting, denouncing possible contradictions, not wasting your time, and yet being open if eventually evidence comes out of it (because scientific method as you well know is neutral) ?

I mean, you cant possibly give equal attention to all sorts of far-out claims just because there isnt conclusive evidence that each specific case is a lie, you would spend eternities in your spambox, so whats your criteria then?

 

[Citta]

Sadly many self proclaimed science advocating people do not seem to partake of the idea that 'lack of evidence is not evidence against'
or has been said:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This depends on the nature of the problem. In probability theory, for example, absence of evidence is in fact always evidence of absence - meaning of course, that the given phenomenon continously decreases its probability for actually being existent. This argument is often fallacious, and I generally resent it and recommend people don't throw it out all over the place.

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." - Irving Copi

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

This depends on the nature of the problem. In probability theory, for example, absence of evidence is in fact always evidence of absence - meaning of course, that the given phenomenon continously decreases its probability for actually being existent. This argument is often fallacious, and I generally resent it and recommend people don't throw it out all over the place.

I agree, but in regard to experiences we can say that a perception exists, this does not apply to probability theory and your example is good. However science cannot be done without the suspension of disbelief. Nor can it be done without the suspension of belief,

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." - Irving Copi

Good quote, in terms of events it is totally accurate.

Still, people who are color blind never know that there is something they are born incapable of seeing, they may learn it through interacting but can never realize it on their own. If someone reports an experience that we have not had, a perception we have not had, it is foolish to think that our own lack of experience with it indicates delusion upon their part.

If they were selling something for thousands of dollars, like Casteneda, then caution is certainly wise. If there is evidence of fraud, likewise doubt is wisdom, however in and of itself doubt is just another form of belief and it is often blindly applied.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

If someone claims they have contacted martian beings and have found the cure for cancer and how to live out of sunlight, and they are ready to tell you if you pay 1000$ for their workshops, what do you think is the most reasonable response? To go for it, to consider it 'just as likely as anything else just because there hasnt been conclusive evidence that its a lie' ? Or being skeptical, doubting, denouncing possible contradictions, not wasting your time, and yet being open if eventually evidence comes out of it (because scientific method as you well know is neutral) ?

I agree, it would be a waste of time to investigate things that do not meet at least some form of criteria, even if there is no absolute criteria and everything needs to be considered case by case.

I do think though that to denounce is to waste time, that to be skeptical is often to waste energy. There are a lot of brilliant minds being directed at refutation instead of exploration and i think this is very sad. I have seen some great minds waste years trying to denounce obvious frauds, when they could have contributed so much more to the world.

I really dislike closed minds and frauds alike.
Regardless of their ontological affiliation.

 

[FiorSirtheoir]

The modern definition of logic is wrapped up in the concept that either something is true or something is false; black or white, that is not the creation in which we live: What is, is in fact based upon a multi-valence system; "Nothing is absolute, except nothing. Everything is a matter of degree", not a bi-valence system; A or B, black or white.

Citta you say you don't give a crap what Amit Gaswami has to say about physics and quantum physics, yet you cling to the idea of 'real science' - the man has a PHD in physics and is well respected in his field, it has only be recently that he has focused upon the quantum side of physics because of questions that could not be answered by 'traditional Newtonian' models.

Here is a book for you to read, I have not completed it myself, but perhaps it will broaden all of our horizons: http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Anniversary/dp/1570625190

And here is another author/PHD Physicist you can read up on in regard to this line of discussion:

Fred Alen Wolf

I hope this helps all of us in gaining some perspective.

As far as what I know about quantum mechanics - not nearly as much as I wish that I did.

Peace upon you all!!!

 

[gibran2]

...Being without belief may not be exactly the same as disbelieving, but it doesn't really make any difference, as this example illustrates: A skeptic saying "I don't wanna believe anything about this claim until we have gathered evidence to support it" is not very different from the other skeptic saying "I don't wish to believe in this claim until we have gathered evidence to support it". Both will adjust to the evidence or the lack of evidence, thus actually having an open, but critical thinking, mind.

Regarding “being without belief is not the same as disbelieving”, I think the difference is not as subtle as you’re making it seem:

Being without belief regarding the existence of a supposed phenomenon can be expressed as “In the absence of evidence, I don’t know if the phenomenon exists or not.”
(Agnosticism?)

Disbelieving is expressed as “In the absence of evidence, I believe the phenomenon does not exist.”
(Atheism?)

Who is more likely to be motivated to investigate the phenomenon, the agnostic or the atheist?

 

[Citta]

Citta you say you don't give a crap what Amit Gaswami has to say about physics and quantum physics, yet you cling to the idea of 'real science' - the man has a PHD in physics and is well respected in his field, it has only be recently that he has focused upon the quantum side of physics because of questions that could not be answered by 'traditional Newtonian' models.

I don't give a crap about what he says because what he says is a lot of bullshit. It's just quantum new age quackery.
The same goes for the two other authors you refered to.

Regarding “being without belief is not the same as disbelieving”, I think the difference is not as subtle as you’re making it seem:

Being without belief regarding the existence of a supposed phenomenon can be expressed as “In the absence of evidence, I don’t know if the phenomenon exists or not.”
(Agnosticism?)

Disbelieving is expressed as “In the absence of evidence, I believe the phenomenon does not exist.”
(Atheism?)

Who is more likely to be motivated to investigate the phenomenon, the agnostic or the atheist?

That is a fair point, gibran2.

 

[FiorSirtheoir]

Citta you say you don't give a crap what Amit Gaswami has to say about physics and quantum physics, yet you cling to the idea of 'real science' - the man has a PHD in physics and is well respected in his field, it has only be recently that he has focused upon the quantum side of physics because of questions that could not be answered by 'traditional Newtonian' models.

I don't give a crap about what he says because what he says is a lot of bullshit. It's just quantum new age quackery.
The same goes for the two other authors you referred to.

Regarding “being without belief is not the same as disbelieving”, I think the difference is not as subtle as you’re making it seem:

Being without belief regarding the existence of a supposed phenomenon can be expressed as “In the absence of evidence, I don’t know if the phenomenon exists or not.”
(Agnosticism?)

Disbelieving is expressed as “In the absence of evidence, I believe the phenomenon does not exist.”
(Atheism?)

Who is more likely to be motivated to investigate the phenomenon, the agnostic or the atheist?

That is a fair point, gibran2.

So you believe - what evidence or lack if evidence do you have to provide to support your statement? Have you read either book or looked at the research behind them? Just from your statements above it seems your answer implies no.

 

[Citta]

Goswami have said the following, among many other things:

". . . psychic phenomena, such as distant viewing and out-of-body experiences, are examples of the nonlocal operation of consciousness . . . . Quantum mechanics undergirds such a theory by providing crucial support for the case of nonlocality of consciousness."

No reliable, reproducible evidence has been found for the psychic phenomena he claims exists because of quantum mechanics. This is the first mistake. The second mistake, and perhaps an even bigger one, is his claim that quantum mechanics supports psychic phenomena. This is absolutely not so, and a gross misunderstanding/misuse/misinterpretation of quantum mechanics.

Furthermore, quantum mechanics is misinterpretated to imply that human consciousness somehow creates and controls reality. Now, I am not going to put on the "magic hat of Absolute Truth" and claim this 100% ain't so - however, there is no compelling argument or evidence to support that this should be the case. In other words, it is extremely unlikely, and saying that it actually is so is just plain silly. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations - without any need or any reference to consciousness. Again, I am not saying with 100% certainty that this can't be possible, but I am saying that there is no evidence, no compelling argument, nothing at all to support this. Using quantum mechanics to spread these ideas is lying and claiming this to be the truth is applying reductionism to an absurd level. It is quantum nonsense, not quantum mechanics.

This applies to the other guy, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf as well. He is a proponent of these ideas, and was in the film (together with Goswami) "What the bleep do we know", which is basically just pseudoscience. Furthermore, his page is ridiculous, and he wants to sell books and DVDs to spread his misinformation and claim to have proven the existence of God, and whatever else bladibla. His site is full of shit, where is your bullshit detector?

 

[benzyme]

look..

if one can't provide a testable model to show evidence to support a hypothesis, one's hypothesis
is by definition, pseudoscience (or merely an untestable hypothesis). period.

 

[gibran2]

Regarding quantum mechanics and the paranormal: There are many phenomena that are poorly understood, and it’s easy to attribute them to quantum mechanics. The reason it’s so easy to do is because quantum mechanics is poorly understood.

I don’t mean that the equations of quantum mechanics aren’t precise and lead to accurate predictions, but rather that there aren’t any good explanations for why quantum phenomena are as they are. Entanglement and non-locality, observer-dependent outcomes, etc. are all quantum phenomena that can be expressed mathematically (I assume – I’m not a physicist), but we don’t have any good explanations for why the universe behaves this way at the quantum level.

So when anyone attributes an unexplained phenomenon to quantum mechanics, all they’re really doing is substituting one unknown for another unknown. They’re not shedding any additional light on the phenomenon. They’re not explaining anything.

If they’re not shedding any additional light on the phenomenon and there’s no way to definitively show the phenomenon is related to quantum phenomena, then why attribute it to quantum mechanics? Because it lends an air of scientific legitimacy to the phenomenon. In other words, associating a phenomenon with quantum mechanics, even though there’s no scientific reason to do so, is a cheap and easy way to give an air of legitimacy to one’s ideas. It’s done too often and I’m always suspicious of those who do it. For me, it has the opposite of the intended effect – I’m less willing to entertain an idea that’s linked to quantum mechanics in order to make it seem scientifically credible.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

look..

if one can't provide a testable model to show evidence to support a hypothesis, one's hypothesis
is by definition, pseudoscience (or merely an untestable hypothesis). period.

I totally agree.

By this definition though, some things in the so called spiritual belief systems are not pseudoscience, and some are.
Most shamanic methodology operates according to a hypothesis and is tested constantly through practice and use.

Consider that the use of medicinal plants to cure various ailments is a huge part of it, but that plant spirits are said to be consulted for this. In the western sense this has a combination of scientific and pseudoscientific principals, however what about when the plant spirits have a great track record, as in a shaman who is unfamiliar with a given plant does his thing, reports getting told about the plant and then administers it.

Then the phenomena of shared hallucination, something well documented but not well understood suggests that there is more to our being and experiencing than we presently have adequate explanation for.

 

[benzyme]

what is a plant spirit, and what evidence is there to suggests it actually exists?

also consider: some people don't have a "shared hallucination", and some people don't hallucinate at all with a given compound. This phenomenon suggests that the experience is not only subjective, it is primarily physiological in origin.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

what is a plant spirit, and what evidence is there to suggests it actually exists?

also consider: some people don't have a "shared hallucination", and some people don't hallucinate at all with a given compound. This phenomenon suggests that the experience is not only subjective, it is primarily physiological in origin.

some people can't see colors that others can, the idea that some people experience things others do not invalidate those experiences or perceptions

if you have not contacted a plant spirit or vice versa, then you cannot understand. It is like trying to explain a color to a person who has not seen it, and may not be able to.

You sound like a blind man trying to refute sight in others.